Non-Functional Biomimicry: Utilising Natural Patterns in Order to Provoke
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Non-functional biomimicry: Utilising natural patterns in order to provoke attention responses Abstract Natural reoccurring patterns arise from chaos and are prevalent throughout nature. The formation of these patterns is controlled by, or produces, underlying geometrical structures. Biomimicry is the study of nature’s structure, processes and systems, as models and solutions for design challenges and is being widely utilized in order to address many issues of contemporary engineering. Many academics now believe that aesthetics stem from pattern recognition, consequently, aesthetic preference may be a result of individuals recognising, and interacting with, natural patterns. The goal of this research was to investigate the impact of specific naturally occurring pattern types (spiral, branching, and fractal patterns) on user behaviour; investigating the potential of such patterns to control and influence how individuals interact with their surrounding environment. The results showed that the underlying geometry of natural patterns has the potential to induce attention responses to a statistically significant level. Keywords Biomimicry, product aesthetics, non-functional biomimicry, natural patterns 1. Introduction Aesthetics is the philosophical study of beauty, art, and the nature of the appreciation of beauty. Many academics believe that aesthetics stem from pattern recognition based on the brain’s evolutionary adaptations. Rhodes et al. (1998) argue that the human brain associates certain patterns with beauty, maintaining that facial symmetry is fundamental to the perception of beauty. They argue that there is a correlation between symmetry and fitness in nature, especially in reproductive partners, and, as a result, symmetry is selected due to the increased survival advantage it offers the preceding generation. Enquist & Arak (1994) agree that the human brain is programmed to be attracted to symmetry, however, they argue that the basis for the attraction is due to the advantage it offers humans with regard to object recognition. They claim that such preferences allow the brain to recognise objects regardless of their orientation within a visual field. There are recurring patterns that manifest throughout nature, one example of this is the Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci sequence is a sequence where N is the sum of the two preceding numbers, i.e. 0,1,1,2,3,5,8..., It is not only abundant in nature, but it has already formed the basis for many aesthetic designs (Fig 1). Teuscher (2004) explains mathematician Alan Turing believed that such patterns are a result of living matter’s ability to self-organise. Turing used nonlinear differential equations to create a computer model of nature’s hypothesised ability to self-organise. In 1979 mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot created the Mandelbrot set (Fig 2), a fractal set of points which demonstrates the creation of complex self- similar structures from simple mathematical rules. The aim of this research was to investigate the impact of specific, naturally occurring pattern types (spiral, branching, and fractal patterns) on user behaviour; investigating the potential of such patterns to control and influence how individuals interact with their surrounding environment through evoking attention responses in individuals. An experiment was carried out using the virtual world 'Second Life' with the purpose of examining how individuals would react to different patterns within an environment. The results showed that the underlying geometry of natural patterns has the potential to evoke attention responses to a statistically significant level. 2. Patterns in nature Philip Ball (Ball & Borley, 1999; Ball 2008, Ball, 2011) argues that complexity is controlled by, and is the result of, simple physical laws. The theory that simple mathematical equations could explain growth patterns in nature was pioneered by Thompson (1915) in his influential book 'On growth and form'. Ball explains the mathematical concepts behind pattern formation and details the emergent properties of certain patterns that lead to complexity from simplicity. Hanzen (2009) believes that three principles direct pattern configuration in living and non- living systems: A) Patterns emerging as a result of interactions involving numerous entities, e.g. molecules, sand, etc. B) Groupings formed through the combination of such entities. C) Selection of functional configurations of entities. Hanzen et al. (2007) demonstrated that the methodological evolutionary principles of pattern configuration in biological life forms can be traced all the way down to RNA configuration. Camazine et al. (2001) share Hanzen’s belief that evolution is the guiding force for pattern selection in living systems and they also echo his opinions on pattern formation through self- organisation. They recognise, however, that there may be cases where patterns in nature emerge which are imposed by alternative sources, for example, following a leader. Nonetheless, Camazine et al. argue that such patterns are emergent properties of complex systems which are reliant on self-organisation and, therefore, all patterns have a base in self-organisation. Turing patterns are patterns in nature which are formed through Hanzen’s second principle. Several studies have been carried out into Turing patterns (Figure 1), such as that of Millonas & Rauch (2004) and Ouyang & Swinney (1991) which demonstrate the ability of such patterns to self-organise, the mechanism being the diffusion of certain molecules over cell membranes. They go on to explain that the patterns are defined by feedback loops caused by self-replicating chemicals. There is strong evidence to suggest that such pattern formation is the cause of markings in the skin of certain mammals, e.g. leopards, cows. For example, research carried out by Lui et al. (2006) recreated the exact growth of the markings on a Jaguar’s coat, throughout its development to adulthood, using Turing Patterns. They also presented strong evidence which suggests Turing patterns may be responsible for patterns in bacteria, fish, insects, and many other organisms. Rietkerk & Koppel (2008) collated and reviewed several studies which hypothesise that feedback loops, such as those seen in Turing patterns, may, in fact, be influencing entire ecosystems with the organisms being the self-replicating agents. However, they concede that further studies are required in order to gain a fuller understanding of pattern formations at such a level. Figure 1: Turing patterns for stable concentrations of activator and inhibitor in a two-dimensional array of cells. Branching Patterns (Figure 2) are also widely observed throughout nature. Pickett & White (2011) detail the evidence which suggests that branching patterns are a result of mathematical functions that minimise the total length of all the stems in the system. They suggest such patterns are retained in trees in order to allow them to collect the maximum amount of sunlight with the most effective possible structure. Their hypothesis is supported by other structures found in nature, for example, the human lung, where the branching pattern maximises the surface areas of the blood stream for diffusion. Such patterns can also be seen in multi- organism systems, for example, ants. Holldolber & Wilson (1990) elucidate that driver ants follow branching patterned chemical pathways while hunting; this allows them to cover them to cover the maximum possible area in the most in the most effective manner. The origins of the patterns, however, are still a cause for debate. Dawkins (1986) argues that such patterns are the result of natural selection, however, clearly rivers and lighting are not subject to natural selection. Leopold (date?) concedes to the objection that branching patterns are not completely universal throughout nature and that under certain conditions alternative structures are selected, for example, desert trees. Figure 2: Branching patterns observed in trees (a), rivers (b), the human lung (c) and lightening (d). Spiral patterns are also abundant throughout nature, appearing in, for example, galaxy formation, plant structures, storms, and shells. Cook (1979), whose work is accepted by contemporary scientists (Steadman, 2008; Livio, 2008), suggests that spirals are found throughout the universe due to equilibrium and their ability to conserve energy. Cook, however, suggests that biological organisms make use of spirals for a variety of reasons, for example, fitting organs into small areas while maximising the surface area of the organ, like the long intestine of frogs which resembles a tightly coiled spring in tadpoles. Many scientists now argue that such patterns are the result of fractals. Fractals are sets which contain a fractal dimension. The fractal dimension changes with scale resulting in self similar patterns which are greater in size than the space they are contained in. Mandelbrot (1983), a key author in the field who later presented the case for nature being controlled by fractal geometry, created a fractal set which demonstrates the ability to create complex self-similarity from simple mathematical rules. The significance of this demonstration is emphasised by authors such as Peitgen & Richter (1986) and Devaney (1999) who explain that one of nature’s key sequences is found within the Mandelbrot set: the Fibonacci sequence. Figure 3 (a) illustrates how the shape of the Mandelbrot set varies as the algorithms are repeated and as the set expands, or 'grows', the shapes follow a